Featured image for Finding Common Ground When You Know You’re Right
Crucial Conversations QA

Finding Common Ground When You Know You’re Right

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
David Maxfield

David Maxfield is coauthor of two New York Times bestsellers, Change Anything and Influencer.

READ MORE

Crucial Conversations

Q Dear Crucial Skills,

How do you suggest we prepare to talk about something that matters immensely to us? We may think we are ready to engage in dialogue, but deep down, we are pretty sure we are “right.”

For instance, what if I believe that good nutrition and exercise is vitally important to good health, and my spouse—who just had a heart attack—believes those factors are negligible and that family history is the determining factor in whether a person is likely to have a heart attack?

Or how about the situation where one brother believes the family business should be conducted in such a way that profits are maximized and the other brother believes that the environment must be the first consideration? How do I ready myself for these types of conversations? How do I open my heart and my mind to differing points of view?

Unprepared

A Dear Unprepared,

Your question gets at the heart of why many conversations fail: at some point in the dialogue, our motives degrade. We start to care more about winning than about finding common ground and common solutions. Of course, this is especially likely when we care passionately about our position. The dialogue turns into debate or argument. And, as Dale Carnegie famously said, “You can’t win an argument.”

Today’s world contains a lot of polarizing issues, and zealots on both sides talk and listen mostly to themselves. They bolster their own positions and disparage the other side. Then, when the two sides meet, it’s to joust and score points, not to find common ground or common solutions.

Why dialogue is valuable: I personally have trouble staying in dialogue when I know I’m right—not just factually right, but morally right. I do believe there are rights and wrongs. So, isn’t it sometimes better to bypass dialogue and defeat the other side? Yes, those occasions exist. While dialogue might not always be the best solution, it is especially important in two circumstances:

  • When you care as much about the relationship as you do your position, such as with the spouse who is denying the importance of nutrition and exercise.
  • When you and the other person or group are interdependent. You may not want a relationship with the other side, but some level of cooperation is required because neither of you can succeed on your own. This may be the case in a family business, in a relationship with a boss, and in a political stalemate.

So what can you do in these situations to stay in dialogue and stay out of debate?

Determine what you really want. Consider the two bullets above and ask yourself what you really want for yourself, for the other person, and for the relationship. Look beyond any single issue or conversation and focus on your long-term goals.

If your long-term goal is to defeat the other side and discredit their point of view, then be realistic about whether you can succeed without their help. Again, take a long and inclusive view. Look beyond this particular issue and conversation. For example, if you need their help to govern, then you’ll need to engage them in dialogue—no matter how distasteful that may be.

If you decide dialogue is necessary or desirable, then use the tips below to keep yourself and the other party in frank, honest, and respectful conversation.

Establish ground rules that maintain respect. We’ve all seen debaters who score points by making the other person look bad. They try to undercut the person’s credibility and eventually descend into some kind of name-calling. These tactics destroy safety and poison dialogue.

Begin the conversation by making a personal commitment to avoid hot words, loaded language, and personal attacks. Commit to listen and to take the time to understand the other person’s perspective. Ask the other person to make this same commitment and then hold each other to these ground rules.

Build on common ground rather than seek out wedge issues. Think of two circles that overlap. The overlap is our common ground; the non-overlapping areas are our differences and disagreements. Too often, we focus on our disagreements and use them as wedge issues to drive the circles further apart. If we want to make progress, we need to focus on the areas where we overlap—where we have common ground and common purpose.

For example, partners in the family business might find common ground around customer satisfaction, quality, and productivity. I’m not saying that you should ignore your differences, but try to build on areas of agreement. For example, New Jersey’s Republican governor and Newark’s Democratic mayor cooperate in areas of common interest despite having significant differences on a wide range of issues.

Find “and” solutions, while avoiding “either/or” thinking. Look for what’s right in the other person’s position and then add to it. Notice how this is different from the assumption “If I’m right, then you must be wrong.” Often, parts of both positions are right and these constitute the common ground you can build on.

For example, your spouse believes that family history is a major risk factor for heart attacks. Of course, your spouse is correct. Take this opportunity to agree. This is common ground you can build on.

Once you’ve agreed that family history is important, you can move on to other risk factors, which may be within an individual’s control—such as nutrition and exercise. You’d want to focus on these risk factors even if you thought their contribution was minor—because they are within your control.

Seek ways to eliminate the other person’s worst fears. Humans are designed to be very risk averse. A side effect of this survival strategy is that we tend to catastrophize. We anticipate the worst that could happen and act as if it’s imminent—even when it’s not. For example, I’m guessing members of the family business are each imagining the worst possible scenario.

One brother thinks the other wants to bankrupt the business in favor of the environment, while the other thinks his brother wants to pollute every river and stream. What if each brother made a commitment to avoid the other’s worst fears? Then they could have fruitful dialogue about the middle ground. This approach takes extremism out of the dialogue.

I hope these ideas help you prepare for your tough conversations—even if you are “right” or care passionately. Let me know how it works.

David

Headshot

David Maxfield

David Maxfield is a New York Times bestselling author, keynote speaker, and leading social scientist for organizational change. For thirty years, David has delivered engaging keynotes at prestigious venues including Stanford and Georgetown Universities. David’s work has been translated into twenty-eight languages, is available in thirty-six countries, and has generated results for three hundred of the Fortune 500.
read more

3 thoughts on “Finding Common Ground When You Know You’re Right”

  1. I read your post and was immediately struck by the idea that our government could learn a lot from following your suggestions. Perhaps you can send it to the entire US Congress! Thanks for the great ideas and examples. I really appreciated the link to the Corey Booker/ Chris Christie example. Well done!

  2. A colleague of mine shared another thought that I think is very related. That is that people change for one of 3 reasons: Pain, Perception or Payoff. If they don’t experience or percieve any one of these, the likelihood of making the change is slim.

  3. I heard somehwere recently that a good principle goes bad when it becomes a “cause.” That resonated with me on a number of fronts. It seems applicable here. Taking care of the environment is a good principle. Who doesn’t want to have a pleasant and sustainable place to live. When it becomes a cause in itself, there is a lot of evil done in its name. Making a profit is a good goal to create a sustainable business and support the stakeholders. When it becomes an end, in itself, then it can lead to unethical and damaging behavior–including the destruction of the environment. So, in addition to keeping relationships at a high priority in these crucial conversations, it might be useful to question whether or not a good principle is being over-leveraged.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *